W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Structured clone in WebStorage

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:21:39 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTikJiPNZVSqT6V36nOFO_U2BT3TKg7M2x4P5DbHt@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, ext Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
> wrote:
> > On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> >>> For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that
> >>> Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve objects per the structured
> clone
> >>> algorithm rather than strings.  And yet there isn't a single
> >>> implementation
> >>> who's implemented this.  I've talked to people in the know from several
> >>> of
> >>> the other major browsers and, although no one is super against
> >>> implementing
> >>> it (including us), no one has it on any of their (even internal)
> >>> roadmaps.  It's just not a high enough priority for anyone at the
> moment.
> >>> I feel pretty strongly that we should _at least_ put in some
> >>> non-normative
> >>> note that no browser vendor is currently planning on implementing this
> >>> feature.  Or, better yet, just remove it from the spec until support
> >>> starts
> >>> emerging.
> >>
> >> I agree. We have no plans to support this in the near future either. At
> >> the
> >> very least, I think this should be noted as a "feature at risk" in the
> >> Call
> >> for Implementations [1].
> >
> > I don't have a strong preference for removing this feature or marking it
> as
> > a Feature At Risk when the Candidate is published.
> >
> > It would be good to get feedback from other implementers (Maciej?,
> Jonas?,
> > Anne?). If no one plans to implement it, perhaps it should just be
> removed.
>
> I won't be the person implementing it, but fwiw I highly value having
> structured clones actually work.  Any time I talk about localStorage
> or similar, I get people asking about storing non-string data, and not
> wanting to have to futz around with rolling their own serialization.
>

The spec should reflect reality and not be a collection of cool ideas that
may or may not ever be implemented.

I'm not arguing the merits of the feature, I'm arguing that until at least a
single vendor starts implementing this, it's confusing for developers to see
such text in the spec--especially so when said text has been there for over
a year.

J
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 17:22:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:42 GMT